Story 1: No Thanks To The Lying Lunatic Left Losers The American People Thank President Trump for Making America Safer From Radical Islamic Terrorists From Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen With A 90 Day Temporary Pause for Travelers From These Countries To Begin Extreme Vigorous Vetting — Videos

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Reaction to Trump’s Travel Ban

Published on Jan 30, 2017

President Donald Trump signed an executive order barring the entry of U.S. visa holders and others from seven Muslim-majority countries. The White House defends its order as federal judges intervene and protests continue in cities and airports across America.
Originally published at – http://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/…

Charles Koch Compares Trump’s Muslim Ban To Nazi Germany

Critics claim President Trump’s travel ban is illegal

Chuck Schumer Starts CRYING Over Donald Trump’s Refugee Travel Ban!

Thousands protest at airports across the country

Sean Spicer Interview: Trump Won’t ‘Apologize For Putting Safety of This Country First’ | This Week

Trump Copy’s Obama Muslim Ban, Media Flips

President Trump defends controversial travel ban

President Trump Signs Executive Order Halting ALL Immigration From 7 Primarily Muslim Countries

Trump’s Exclusion of Aliens from Specific Countries Is Legal

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY January 28, 2017 5:30 PM

Arguments to the contrary ignore the Constitution and misstate federal law.

On Friday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for heightened vetting of certain foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States.

The order temporarily suspends entry by the nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. It is to last for 90 days, while heightened vetting procedures are developed. The order has predictably prompted intense protest from critics of immigration restrictions (most of whom are also critics of Trump). At the New York Times, the Cato Institute’s David J. Bier claims the temporary suspension is illegal because, in his view, it flouts the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This contention is meritless, both constitutionally and as a matter of statutory law.

Let’s start with the Constitution, which vests all executive power in the president. Under the Constitution, as Thomas Jefferson wrote shortly after its adoption, “the transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether. It belongs then to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specifically submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly.”

The rare exceptions Jefferson had in mind, obviously, were such matters as the approval of treaties, which Article II expressly vests in the Senate. There are also other textual bases for a congressional role in foreign affairs, such as Congress’s power over international commerce, to declare war, and to establish the qualifications for the naturalization of citizens. That said, when Congress legislates in this realm, it must do so mindful of what the Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936), famously described as “the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.”

In the international arena, then, if there is arguable conflict between a presidential policy and a congressional statute, the president’s policy will take precedence in the absence of some clear constitutional commitment of the subject matter to legislative resolution. And quite apart from the president’s presumptive supremacy in foreign affairs, we must also adhere to a settled doctrine of constitutional law: Where it is possible, congressional statutes should be construed in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts.

With that as background, let’s consider the claimed conflict between the president’s executive order and Congress’s statute.

Mr. Bier asserts that Trump may not suspend the issuance of visas to nationals of specific countries because the 1965 immigration act “banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin.” And, indeed, a section of that act, now codified in Section 1152(a) of Title 8, U.S. Code, states that (with exceptions not here relevant) “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence” (emphasis added).

Even on its face, this provision is not as clearly in conflict with Trump’s executive order as Bier suggests. As he correctly points out, the purpose of the anti-discrimination provision (signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965) was to end the racially and ethnically discriminatory “national origins” immigration practice that was skewed in favor of Western Europe. Trump’s executive order, to the contrary, is in no way an effort to affect the racial or ethnic composition of the nation or its incoming immigrants. The directive is an effort to protect national security from a terrorist threat, which, as we shall see, Congress itself has found to have roots in specified Muslim-majority countries.

Because of the national-security distinction between Trump’s 2017 order and Congress’s 1965 objective, it is not necessary to construe them as contradictory, and principles of constitutional interpretation counsel against doing so.

Nevertheless, let’s concede for argument’s sake that there is conflict. At issue is a matter related to the conduct of foreign affairs – a matter of the highest order of importance since it involves foreign threats to national security. If there were a conflict here, the president’s clear constitutional authority to protect the United States would take precedence over Congress’s dubious authority to limit the president’s denial of entry to foreign nationals.

But there is no conflict.

Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” (emphasis added).

Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done. In fact, in doing so, he expressly cites Section 1182(f), and his executive order tracks the language of the statute (finding the entry of aliens from these countries at this time “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”).

While Bier ignores the president’s constitutional foreign-affairs authority (although Trump expressly relies on it in the first line of his executive order), he concedes that Trump is relying on a statute. He theorizes, nevertheless, that because Section 1182(f) was enacted in 1952, whereas the non-discrimination provision (Section 1152(a)) was enacted years afterward, the latter must be deemed to have amended the former – thus removing the president’s authority to impose class restrictions based on the aliens’ country of origin.

Nice try.

Put aside that Trump is principally relying on his inherent constitutional authority, and that the class restriction he has directed is based on national-security, not racial or ethnic considerations. Trump’s executive order also expressly relies on an Obama-era provision of the immigration law, Section 1187(a)(12), which governs the Visa Waiver Program. This statute empowers the executive branch to waive the documentation requirements for certain aliens. In it, Congress itself expressly discriminates based on country of origin.

Under this provision, Congress provides that an alien is eligible for the waiver only if he or she has not been present (a) in Iraq or Syria any time after March 1, 2011; (b) in any country whose government is designated by the State Department as “repeatedly provid[ing] support for acts of international terrorism”; or (c) in any country that has been designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a country “of concern.” Trump is principally relying on his inherent constitutional authority.

So, not only has Congress never repealed the president’s sweeping statutory power to exclude classes of aliens from entry on national-security grounds; decades after the 1965 anti-discrimination provision touted by Bier, Congress expressly authorized discrimination on the basis of national origin when concerns over international terrorism are involved. Consequently, by Bier’s own logic, the 1965 statute must be deemed amended by the much more recent statute.

Bier concedes that, despite the 1965 anti-discrimination statute, President Jimmy Carter barred entry by Iranian nationals in 1980, after the Khomeini revolution led to the U.S.-hostage crisis. But he treats Carter’s restriction based on national origin as an aberration. Instead, he insists, we should place more stock in the federal courts’ affirmation of the 1965 anti-discrimination provision during the 1990s — specifically, in a litigation involving an alien from Vietnam who had fled to Hong Kong and objected to being required to return to Vietnam to apply for a visa when applicants from other countries faced no such requirement.

But there is no inconsistency here. Bier perceives one only by overlooking the salient national-security distinction. The discriminatory treatment of Iranians was rationally rooted in anti-terrorism concerns, and was clearly proper. The discriminatory treatment of the Vietnamese alien was unrelated to national security or terrorism, and thus problematic. Trump, like Carter, is quite properly acting on national-security concerns.

One can debate the policy wisdom of the executive order, which is plainly a temporary measure while a more comprehensive and thoughtfully tailored policy is developed. The seven countries the president has singled out are surely hotbeds of radical Islam; but he has omitted other countries – e.g., Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 suicide-hijackers who attacked our country on 9/11 – that are also cauldrons of jihadism.

Furthermore, as I have argued, the real threat to be targeted is sharia-supremacist ideology, which is inherently hostile to the Constitution. Were we to focus our vetting, unapologetically, on that ideology (also known as “radical” or “political” Islam), it would be unnecessary to implement a categorical ban on Muslims or immigrants from majority-Muslim countries. That is critical because non-Islamist Muslims who can demonstrate loyalty to our constitutional principles should not be barred from admission; while Islamists, on the other hand, are not found only in Muslim-majority countries – other things being equal, a sharia supremacist from the banlieues of Paris poses as much of a threat as a sharia supremacist from Raqqa.

Yet, all that can be debated as we go forward. For now, there is no doubt that the executive order temporarily banning entry from specified Muslim-majority countries is both well within President Trump’s constitutional authority and consistent with statutory law.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

The order also calls for a review into suspending the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which allows travelers from 38 countries — including close allies — to renew travel authorizations without an in-person interview.

Here is the order in its entirety:

Trump’s immigration order: Which countries are affected?

Iran

Iraq

Syria

Sudan

Libya

Yemen

Somalia

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

These countries were already named as “countries of concern” after a law passed by a Republican-led Congress in 2015 altered a visa admissions programme.

The Visa Waiver Program allows citizens from 38 countries to enter the US for 90 days without a visa. The UK, France and Germany are among those countries allowed in under the waiver programme. Visitors apply for an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (Esta).

In December 2015 Congress passed a law – created by senators from both parties, and supported and signed by the White House – that removed waiver benefits for foreign nationals who had visited certain countries since March 2011. The countries were identified as having a terrorist organisation with a significant presence in the area, or the country was deemed a “safe haven” for terrorists.

Image copyrightJOE RAEDLE/GETTY Image captionThe executive order has been followed by demonstrations across the United States

After Libya, Somalia and Yemen were added to the list in February 2016, the “countries of concern” were the seven named in Mr Trump’s order.

According to the restrictions, citizens who had been eligible for the waiver programme and had visited one of those seven countries in the time period were forced to apply for a visa.

The Obama administration passed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 after the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. The Act, however, unlike Trump’s much more broad order, only affected people eligible for the visa waiver programme, rather than suspend all citizens’ travel from one of those seven countries.

In a statement on 29 January, President Trump said his policy was “similar” to an Obama order that “banned visa for refugees from Iraq”.

Trump referred to an incident in May 2011 when the FBI indicted two Iraqi citizens in Kentucky on federal terrorism charges. Both were accused of providing material support to al-Qaeda and had been involved in attacks against US forces in Iraq.

A hearing before the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence found that the pair had “exploited special Iraqi refugee programs”. The vetting system came under review and this resulted in fewer Iraqi refugee admissions that year.

The number of refugees from Iraq dropped from 18,016 to 9,388 as a result of the suspension. That number increased to 12,163 the following year.

Do citizens from the seven countries pose the biggest threats?

Mr Trump’s order said that foreign-born individuals have been responsible for “numerous” terrorism-related crimes since 9/11, including foreign nationals who have entered the country on visa or refugee programmes. The 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon and Egypt.

In September 2015 the Homeland Security Committee reported that the so-called Islamic State had inspired or directed 60 terror plots or attacks in Western countries, including 15 in the United States. There are 250 American citizens known to have joined Islamist extremist groups.

Significant recent attacks in the US were not committed by citizens from any of the seven countries included in the order. This list includes:

There have been a few non-fatal attacks by individuals from two of the countries on the banned list.

According to the New America Foundation, 82% of all terrorism incidents since 2001 were conducted by citizens and permanent residents. Since 9/11, jihadists have killed 94 people inside the United States.

A Cato Institute study found that Americans are 253 times more likely to die in a regular homicide than dying in a terrorist attack committed by a foreigner in the US.

US Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have said the order “may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security”, because of the signal it sends to the Muslim world.

But President Trump has rejected that notion, saying in an interview that America’s enemies were already angry and it was his number one responsibility to keep the country safe. And his supporters wholeheartedly agree.

“Donald Trump says this is temporary and I trust him,” said one resident in New York’s Staten Island. “His number one job is to protect the American people.”

Trump’s latest executive order: Banning people from 7 countries and more

Story highlights

Many of the provisions in the order are consistent with Trump’s campaign pledges

Here’s a breakdown of what the executive order does

Washington (CNN)With just a few quick strokes of the pen, President Donald Trump on Friday banned — temporarily, for now — roughly 218 million people from entering the United States.

Trump barred citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US for at least the next 90 days by executive order, which a senior White House official said later Friday is likely just a first step toward establishing a broader ban.

It’s unclear how many more countries will be added to the list, but the official said the administration will be “very aggressive” as it weighs how many more countries to add to the list.

Asked what criteria the administration will consider as it looks to expand the ban beyond the initial seven countries, the official said simply the “mandate is to keep America safe.”

“Not going to take any risks,” the official added.

That’s just one part of the controversial executive order Trump signed Friday dubbed: “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” Many of the provisions in the order are consistent with Trump’s campaign pledges.

Here’s a breakdown of what the executive order does.

Bans citizens of 7 countries

Trump banned citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US for at least the next 90 days.

The executive order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — or at least 218 million people, based on 2015 data published by the World Bank — from entering the United States. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as “countries of concern.”

But the executive order also makes clear those seven countries are just a starting point for a likely broader ban.

The order exempts diplomats and members of international organizations from the ban.

Orders review of countries to be added to the ban

The order also directs the secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a 30-day review to determine which countries do not provide “adequate information” for its citizens to be issued visas to enter the US.

During the campaign, Trump talked about these countries as “terror-prone” countries. During the GOP primary campaign, he called for banning all Muslims from the US — a statement he never retracted — before shifting toward calling for banning individuals from countries with terrorist links, though he never specified the countries.

Suspends the US refugee program

Trump also stopped the admission of all refugees to the United States for four months.

During that time, Trump’s secretary of state will review the application and screening process for refugees to be admitted to the US. The process is already highly rigorous and often takes successful refugee applicants at least two years to be admitted into the United States, but Trump has argued the program could still be exploited by terrorists.

Trump also more than halved the number of refugees who could eventually be admitted in 2017 to 50,000 from the 110,000 cap established under former President Barack Obama.

Trump also states in the order that refugees should be prioritized for entry on the basis of religious persecution, “provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion.” That would open the door for Christian refugees from Muslim-majority countries to be accepted in the US while Muslims fleeing those countries would be excluded.

Bans Syrian refugees

“I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry,” Trump declared in Friday’s executive order.

While Trump during his campaign called for banning Syrian refugees from the US — decrying their entry as a potential “Trojan horse” — he also called for establishing a safe zone in Syria where Syrians fleeing the war-ravaged country could live peacefully. Trump made no mention of that plan in Friday’s executive order, even though a draft of the executive order circulating in recent days called for beginning to plan for creating such zones.

Calls for new immigration screening procedures

The executive order also calls for the secretaries of state and homeland security, the director of national intelligence and the FBI director to develop and implement new immigration screening procedures.

Trump during his campaign called for developing new “extreme vetting” screening procedures that would weed out potential terrorists from visa applicants by asking questions about their views on the US and ensuring that individuals support the US’s pluralistic values.

“In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles,” Trump states in the opening section of the executive order.

“The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred…or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”

Correction: The combined population of the seven countries named in the executive order — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — is roughly 218 million, according to 2015 data published by the World Bank. An earlier version of this story incorrectly used a lower figure.

Confusion reigned at airports around the world Sunday over exactly which citizens from the seven nations subject to President Donald Trump’s immigration ban are still permitted to fly to the U.S.

Airlines at international hubs from Dubai to London Heathrow were grappling with the implications of three court rulings in the U.S. Saturday and Sunday that have temporarily blocked the enforcement of parts of Trump’s executive order.

In the hours after the presidential edict, many airports imposed blanket bans on U.S. travel for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, with Amsterdam Schiphol turning away seven people with valid visas, and Cairo denying boarding to migrants accompanied by United Nations officials.

Throughout the U.S., security officials detained 109 people arriving from the seven countries, including some legal U.S. residents, until judges in Brooklyn, New York; Alexandria, Virginia; and Boston intervened. The Boston ruling, issued Sunday, requires U.S. officials to let passengers from all seven countries who have valid visas deplane and go on their way, though the ruling applies only in Boston.

‘Nothing Has Changed’

Still, airports and airlines are coming to terms with the implications. A security official at the American Airlines Group Inc. check-in desk at Heathrow’s Terminal 3 said Sunday that he’d seen news of the court rulings overnight, but that no further guidance had filtered through from the carrier’s U.S. base. Passengers holding passports from the seven countries will therefore all be turned away, in line with the executive order.

“Nothing has changed,” he said.

Meanwhile, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “the executive order doesn’t affect green-card holders moving forward,” in what seemed to be an adjustment to the administration’s policy.

Airports like Heathrow, Amsterdam and their Persian Gulf rivals are especially affected by the presidential instruction because the seven countries affected have few or no direct U.S. flights, compelling people from those states to fly via such major hubs. Global airlines have struggled to comply after being caught flat-footed by the executive order, and U.S. carriers didn’t get advance notice of the travel ban either, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Stuck Overseas

The court decisions came after a day in which students, refugees and dual citizens were stuck overseas or detained and some businesses warned employees from those countries not to risk leaving the U.S.

There were wrenching scenes — and angry protests — at major airports across the U.S. before the court orders were issued. At New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport, thousands protested outside the international arrivals terminal Saturday chanting, “Let them in!” and “No hate! No fear! Immigrants are welcome here!”

‘Difficult to Explain’

A Delta Air Lines Inc. supervisor at Heathrow said staff had been briefed on the matter Sunday and suggested the situation had become “clearer,” but that travel was still being limited to holders of green cards and diplomatic visas. Even then there has been some confusion with Homeland Security officials, she said. The U.S. carrier will refund anyone refused travel, the official said, adding that it has so far turned away “a few” people, which has been “very difficult to explain” to those concerned.

The most important business stories of the day.

Get Bloomberg’s daily newsletter.

Sign Up

In the Gulf, Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways PJSC and Emirates of Dubai are advising that passengers from the seven nations targeted by Trump can fly to the U.S. if they hold green cards or NATO visas, or are diplomatic officials or UN representatives. Abu Dhabi-based Etihad also said people of dual nationality may travel if they hold a passport from a country not affected by the ban and have a visa.At the same time, the carriers made no mention of travel by ordinary citizens of the seven countries who have valid visas, or refugees from those nations, which the U.S. court rulings indicated should still be permitted.

Emirates, the world’s biggest long-haul airline, said it has so far suffered no significant disruption from the Trump order. About 20 people were affected by the travel ban on Saturday.

In Amsterdam, KLM, a unit of Air France-KLM Group, was unable to say whether passengers like those turned away Saturday would now be able to travel following the legal intervention.

“We simply follow the information we get from immigration and airline authorities in the U.S.,” spokeswoman Manel Vrijenhoek said. “They make that call. It’s not up to KLM.”

“I think every individual that has gone through the process has gone through vetting to make sure they [aren’t] a threat to this country. So the individual must have gone through the system. It’s pretty plain and simple,” he said.

Spicer then dodged a follow-up question seeking further clarification on the matter.

By David Martosko, US Political Editor and Liam Quinn and Clemence Michallon and Emily Crane For Dailymail.com

President Donald Trump issued his most substantial defense of his ‘extreme vetting’ executive order on Sunday afternoon, saying in a statement from the White House that he’s not banning Muslims from entering the U.S. – and laying much of the grief at former president Barack Obama‘s feet.

‘My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months,’ Trump said of his own order, which is slated to expire in 90 days.

Obama’s directive, carried out in response to a specific terror threat, affected only refugees. Trump’s order is broader, including people from seven countries who want to emigrate to the U.S.

Trump also said Sunday said that those nations – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia Sudan, Syria and Yemen – ‘are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.’

‘To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.’

White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and press secretary Sean Spicer, at times flustered on-camera, struggled to defend the president’s policy with some of the same messages during appearances Sunday on political talk shows.

Donald Trump has refused to back down and instead reiterated his belief that America needs to strengthen its borders. He is seen speaking on the phone with the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud

‘What people need to understand is that 325,000 foreign travelers came into the United States,’ Priebus said, referring to Saturday. ‘About 109 of those people were retained – detained for further questioning because they came from the identified seven countries that the Obama administration and both houses of Congress have identified as being countries that harbor and train terrorists.’

Trump himself refused to back down as protests flooded a few major airports. On Twitter, his preferred mode of instant communication with voters, he reiterated his belief that America needs to strengthen its borders.

‘Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world – a horrible mess!’ the president tweeted.

As Trump was tweeting, senior White House official Reince Priebus said on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ that one of the Democrats’ main points of contention – a fear that the executive order made lawful permanent residents, those holding ‘green cards,’ eligible for the same special screening as first-time visitors.

‘The executive order doesn’t affect green card holders moving forward,’ Priebus said. But that’s only because they were already subject to extra scrutiny if they arrive from a terror hotbed.

‘If they have a person that’s traveling back and forth to Libya or Somalia or Yemen, I would suspect within their discretion, they might ask a few more questions at JFK or some other airport when someone’s coming back and forth within their discretionary authority as a customs and border patrol agent,’ he said.

‘And what I’m saying is I would suspect that most Americans would agree that that might be a good thing to do.’

Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly declared the entry of lawful permanent residents, also known as green card holders, to be of national interest on Sunday evening.

‘In applying the provisions of the president’s executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest,’ he said in a statement.

‘Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.’

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S SUNDAY STATEMENT

The president issued a statement Sunday afternoon, defiantly defending his decision to implement an ‘extreme vetting’ program affecting people arriving in the United States from seven of the world’s 53 Muslim-majority countries:

‘America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say.

‘My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.

‘To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.

‘We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.’

Trump tweeted on Sunday morning about the ‘need’ for ‘strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW’. The message came after massive protests on Saturday

Trump is pictured with Jared Kushner, Communications Director Sean Spicer and National Security Advisor Michael Flynn during a call to the Saudi King on Sunday

Kellyanne Conway was also doing the rounds on Sunday morning talk shows, and told ‘Fox News Sunday’ host Chris Wallace that 90-day slowdown was needed to stop another September 11-style attack.

‘It’s temporary,’ she said of the ban, downplaying the affect it could have of separating families.

‘And it’s just circumstantial in terms of whether you are one of those 300 or some who were already on an aircraft or trying to get to an aircraft, as opposed to the 3,000 children who will be forever more separated from their parents who perished on 9/11.’

Spicer said on ABC’s ‘This Week’ that the White House chose not to give front-line border security agencies a heads-up about the coming order, because doing so posed a threat to national security.

Terrorists, he hinted, might have seen the advance warning as a reason to flood the U.S. before the policy took effect Friday afternoon.

But ‘the people that needed to know knew,’ Spicer said.

‘What we couldn’t do was telegraph our position ahead of time to ensure that people flooded in before that happened, before it went into place,’ he added.

‘So the appropriate leadership was notified and cables were being sent out through the state Department as we speak.’

Trump also took aim at The New York Times, whose front page Sunday was dominated by stories about airport protests.

‘Somebody with aptitude and conviction should buy the FAKE NEWS and failing @nytimes and either run it correctly or let it fold with dignity!’ Trump raged.

Senior White House official Reince Priebus revealed on NBC’s Meet the Press that a big change has been made for permanent residents, with green card holders no longer affected

Priebus on immigration ban: ‘Perhaps we need to take it further’

The president’s reactions came after the Department of Homeland Security said a temporary stay granted by a federal court will not stop Trump’s immigration ban from being put in place.

The agency said the court order affected a relatively small number of travelers who were inconvenienced by security procedures upon their return to the United States.

One of them was an 88-year-old blind man, who was detained for hours and had his medication taken from him at Dulles Airport in Virginia, the Daily Beast reported.

‘President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place – prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the US government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety,’ a statement read.

Senior Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller also dismissed the stay order, saying nothing in it ‘in any way impedes or prevents the implementation of the president’s executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect.’

It was also reported on Sunday a coalition of states is considering how they might legally challenge Trump’s order.

Democratic attorneys general are expected to be a source of fierce resistance, much as Republican attorneys general opposed former President Barack Obama’s policies most controversial directives.

A federal lawsuit with the muscle of state governments behind it would heighten the legal stakes surrounding the executive order, signed late Friday; court challenges have so far mostly been filed by individuals with the backing of the ACLU and other groups opposed to scaled-up border security.

Donald Trump was also annoyed by the New York Times on Sunday morning, with the newspaper featuring news of the protests prominently on its front page (right)

Trump called on the historic newspaper to be sold, and continued his war on information and the press by dubbing it, ‘fake news’

One of the people detained on Saturday was an 88-year-old blind man, who was held for hours and had his medication taken from him at Dulles Airport in Virginia, the Daily Beast ‘s Betsy Woodruff reports

Thousands of protesters stage a sit-in at Trump’s DC hotel

‘The Trump executive order should not stand and must be confronted as a constitutional overreach,’ said a statement from California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. ‘It tramples on centuries of American tradition.’

California and New York joined Pennsylvania, Washington and Hawaii in evaluating what specific claims could be filed, and in which court.

The states could decide not to file lawsuits, and it was unclear how many states would ultimately sign on for such an effort.

‘There certainly are conversations underway,’ said Joe Grace, a spokesman for Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro.

On Saturday night, the federal court for the Eastern District of New York issued the stay after only two of 12 refugees held at JFK airport were released. They had been held for 14 and 24 hours respectively.

Migrants around the country were detained, with about 375 travelers impacted by the order.

Out of the 375, 109 were in transit to the US and denied entry. Another 173 people were stopped by airlines from boarding an aircraft to the US.

An additional 81 travelers with green cards or special immigrant visas received waivers.

People protested across the country on Saturday, including in New York where a massive demonstration carried on through Saturday evening as 10 out of 12 refugees remained held at JFK airport

Protesters gather at JFK airport to rally against Trump refugee ban

WHAT IS TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION ORDER SUPPOSED TO DO?

Ban refugee entries from all countries for 120 days. Refugees can be accepted on case-by-case basis, including if they are a religious minority facing religious persecution

Block refugee entries from Syria indefinitely.

Cap refugee intake at 50,000 per year.

Ban visa and immigration entries for 90 days from Muslim-majority countries on banned list, including Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

It is unclear what will happen to those detained. A later court date has been set for February.

Thousands of people were seen protesting at airports across the country, including New York, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco and more.

‘I hope Trump enjoys losing. He’s going to lose so much we’re going to get sick and tired of his losing,’ ACLU national political director Faiz Shakir told Yahoo News.

Lawyers also headed to airports to volunteer to help those who were being detained.

President Donald Trump on Saturday defended his executive order barring refugees and citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the country

The federal court for the Eastern District of New York issued an emergency stay (pictured) Saturday evening. The stay means that none of the travelers detained in airports around the country can be deported

Trump signs executive order on refugee travel ban

WHO EXACTLY IS BANNED FROM THE U.S?

Any non-US citizen from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen is now barred from entering the United States.

That covers visa-holders from those seven countries who were out of the United States after Friday, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order with the temporary ban. They cannot return to the US for 90 days.

There’s an exemption for immigrants and legal permanent residents whose entry is in the US national interest, but it’s unclear how that exemption will be applied.

Visa holders already in the US will be allowed to stay.

Customs and Border Protection is notifying airlines about passengers whose visas have been canceled or legal residents scheduled to fly back to the US Airlines are being told to keep them off those flights.

Source: Associated Press

‘This ruling preserves the status quo and ensures that people who have been granted permission to be in this country are not illegally removed off US soil,’ deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, Lee Gelernt – who argued the case, said.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D Romero added: ‘Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful visitors to this country.

‘Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On week one, Donald Trump suffered his first loss in court.’

It followed reports that Muslim-majority countries with ties to Trump’s business empire have been excluded from the order, Bloomberg reports.

Statistics show Trump doesn’t have any business relations with the seven black-listed countries, but does with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Turkey.

Speaking on Saturday afternoon, Trump defended his policy – hours before protesters and lawyers across the country fought against it.

‘It’s not a Muslim ban, but we are totally prepared,’ Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Saturday afternoon, according to The Hill.

‘It’s working out very nicely. You see it in the airports, you see it all over. It’s working out very nicely and we are going to have a very, very strict ban and we are going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had in this country for many years.’

Reports of people being detained came from all around the US on Saturday. ‘They’re literally pouring in by the minute,’ director of the International Refugee Assistance Project Becca Heller told the New York Times.

A crowd of protesters gathered on Brooklyn’s Cadman Plaza Saturday night, outside of the federal court for the Eastern District of New York that issued the stay

Protesters rallied in Brooklyn outside of the federal courthouse, which blocked Trump’s order temporarily Saturday evening

Demonstrators rallied outside the courthouse Saturday night as a judge granted the emergency stay protecting the detained travelers from deportation

‘No ban’: Demonstrators at the massive rally in Brooklyn voiced their disagreement with Trump’s executive order

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE BEING DETAINED?

A senior Homeland Security official told Reuters that roughly 375 travelers affected by the order.

Out of the 375, 109 were in transit to the US and denied entry. Another 173 people were stopped by airlines from boarding an aircraft to the US.

An additional 81 travelers with green cards or special immigrant visas received waivers.

The ACLU gave an estimate comprised between 100 and 200 people.

New York City/JFK: 12

Dallas/Fort Worth: 50

Dulles International: 50

Los Angeles International: 50

Seattle–Tacoma: 13

Atlanta: 11

Chicago: 13

About 50 people were held at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, USA Today reported. Fifty people were also detained at Dulles International Airport, where protesters gathered. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Attorney General Mark Herring have said the state could take legal action against the ban.

One Yale student said he would be unable to attend the prestigious Ivy League university. Another student from the Massachusetts Institute Of Technology said he was barred from boarding a plane.

A Stanford University student, a Sudanese national and legal permanent resident with a green card, was held for eight hours at JFK before being able to return to California.

An Iranian scientist was meant to fly to Boston to study cardiovascular medicine at Harvard but has now had his visa suspended indefinitely.

‘This outstanding young scientist has enormous potential to make contributions that will improve our understanding of heart disease, and he has already been thoroughly vetted,’ Professor Thomas Michel, who was going to supervise the student, told The New York Times.

Up to 13 people were detained at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, KUOW reported. Eleven people were held at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. Thirteen were detained at Chicago O’Hare according to the Chicago Tribune. At least 50 Iranians were held at Los Angeles International Airport, the LA Times wrote.

Police douse ‘muslim ban’ protesters with tear gas in Seattle

An official spokesman said Sunday UK leader Theresa May does ‘not agree’ with Trump’s order and will challenge the US government if it has an adverse effect on British nationals. May is pictured in the Oval Office with Trump this week

A spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel said the German leader believes the Trump administration’s travel ban on people from some Muslim-majority countries is wrong. Merkel is pictured on January 28

Mehdi Radgoudarzi (left) greeted his wife Susan (right) after being detained for five hours upon his arrival from Tehran, Iran at San Francisco’s SFO International Airport

Hillary Clinton tweeted out against the ban on Saturday night, saying she stands with those protesting the ‘Muslim ban’

WHAT IS THE EMERGENCY STAY?

The emergency stay issued Saturday evening by a federal court is a temporary measure that preserves the status quo pending a permanent ruling.

It means that none of the travelers currently held at airports across the nation can be deported back to their countries.

That is because Judge Ann Donnelly ruled that doing so would cause the travelers irreparable harm.

The stay does not, however, mean that the travelers have to be let into the United States.

It is unclear what will happen to those detained.

The stay is not a ruling on Donald Trump’s executive order enforcing the immigration ban.

Lawyers had filed a petition on behalf of two out of 12 refugees detained at JFK airport.

The men, two Iraqi nationals, had valid visas. One of them had worked for the US government for years.

ACLU attorneys had filed a petition on their behalf, but the stay is effective nationwide.

The lawyers who handled the case have also filed for class certification, which means other people affected by the order will be able to benefit from the stay as part of a class action.

Two families of six from Syria were also impacted. One was supposed to relocate to Cleveland, Ohio, after having to flee their home in 2014. But their trip was canceled.

Another family of six from the war-torn country was detained at Philadelphia International Airport Saturday morning even though they had required legal documents and approved green cards and visas.

Plane passengers were turned away in Dubai and Istanbul, including at least one family who got ejected from a flight.

Hameed Khalid Darweesh, one of the Iraqi refugees, was detained for 14 hours in New York and released on Saturday afternoon. The second detainee, Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, was released around 7 pm on Saturday after 24 hours.

Darweesh, 53, had arrived in America on a flight from Istanbul on Friday night, just hours after Trump implemented the immigration ban.

He had worked for the US government in Iraq for 10 years as a translator, engineer and contractor and had a valid special immigration visa to relocate to America.

Alshawi, 33 – who was approved for a visa on January 11 – was flying to America to join his wife and son in Texas. ‘I’m sleepy and tired and exhausted,’ he told the New York Post after being released Saturday.

Darweesh pumped his fist in the air outside the airport following his release, as a crowd of supporters cheered him on.

‘First of all I want to thank the people that take care of me and support me. This is the humility, this is the soul of America,’ he told a crowd gathered outside the airport.

‘This is what pushed me to move – leave my country and come here. America is the land of freedom… America is the greatest nation, the greatest people in the world.’

He was travelling with his wife and three children at the time but they were not detained. They were heading to Charlotte, North Carolina to start their new life in America.

Radgoudarzi (center) made his way through the arrival pick up area with his wife Susan (left) and daughter Niloofar (right) after being detained at San Francisco’s SFO International Airport as a result of Trump’s order

Mazdak Tootkaboni is pictured being embraced during a demonstration at Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts. Tootkaboni is a US green card holder from Iran and a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, but he was still separated from other passengers and questioned

A female veteran held a sign reading ‘We thought we were helping, sorry’ at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport

Ten other refugees were still being held at JFK airport.

Republican lawmakers have spoken out against Trump’s immigration ban. Senator Chris Murphy tweeted: ‘To my colleagues: don’t ever again lecture me on American moral leadership if you chose to be silent today.’ He later called the emergency stay a temporary victory.

Representative Charlie Dent also spoke out against Trump’s order.

‘This is ridiculous,’ he told the Washington Post. ‘I guess I understand what his intention is, but unfortunately the order appears to have been rushed through without full consideration. You know, there are many, many nuances of immigration policy that can be life or death for many innocent, vulnerable people around the world.’

Yolanda Roa, a Latina Muslim, joined the protest to denounce Trump’s executive order at Dallas-Fort Worth International

Demonstrators gathered in the international arrivals area at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport to protest on Saturday

‘It’s not lawful to ban immigrants on basis of nationality,’ he tweeted. ‘If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress.’

Senator Ben Sasse said that Trump was right to focus on border control, but said the president’s order was is ‘too broad’.

‘If we send a signal to the Middle East that the US sees all Muslims as jihadis, the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America is banning Muslims and that this is America versus one religion,’ he said. ‘Our generational fight against jihadism requires wisdom.’

Police stopped a man giving pizza to protesters who were chanting slogans outside Terminal 4 at JFK airport in New York City

The protest followed Trump’s executive order barring refugees and citizens from seven countries from entering the US

The order also puts a 120-day ban on all refugee entries into the country and declares that refugees from Syria are not welcome until further notice.

After that period of time, refugees will be accepted only from countries that the State and Homeland Security Departments decide are safe to work with.

Backlash against the ban continued to grow internationally on Sunday morning, with British Prime Minister Theresa May joining other leaders in criticizing Trump.

A sea of protesters gathered outside of Terminal 4 of JFK after people from Muslim countries were detained at border control

Lawyers cheered for after judge blocks Trump’s ‘muslim ban’

Protesters held a massive rally at New York City’s JFK airport Saturday after 12 refugees were detained due to the ban

The protest at John F Kennedy International Airport carried on through Saturday as people remained detained

‘This is illegal’: Demonstrators gathered outside JFK Saturday for a long protest after 12 refugees were detained inside

An official spokesman said Sunday that May does ‘not agree’ with Trump’s order and will challenge the US government if it has an adverse effect on British nationals.

The official comment came after May refused to condemn the ban during a visit to Turkey to meet with Turkish leaders. She said in Turkey the decision was a matter solely for the United States.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party, went a step further and called on Trump’s planned visit to the UK to be canceled as long as the immigration ban is in place.

Referring to ‘awful attacks on Muslims,’ ‘awful misogynist language’ and the ‘absurd idea’ of building a wall along the Mexican border, Corbyn says Britain should make it clear to the Trump administration ‘that we are extremely upset about it, and I think it would be totally wrong for him to be coming here while that situation is going on.’

J’accuse: One protester held a sign reading: ‘Trump is the terrorist’ while another proclaimed: ‘This is not how to defeat ISIS!’

One of the JFK protesters demanded more protection for immigrant families, as some were detained around the US

Demonstrators poured into JFK airport all throughout Saturday to express their disagreement with Trump’s order

Police at one point blocked protesters from accessing the Air Train at JFK but Governor Andrew Cuomo later ordered authorities to let them through

A spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel said the German leader believes the Trump administration’s travel ban on people from some Muslim-majority countries is wrong.

Germany’s dpa news agency quoted Merkel’s spokesman Steffen Seibert saying Sunday that ‘she is convinced that even the necessary, resolute fight against terrorism doesn’t justify putting people of a particular origin or particular faith under general suspicion.’

The Iraqi government also spoke out, saying it understands the security motives behind President Donald Trump’s decision to ban seven predominantly Muslim nations, including Iraq, from entering the United States, but underlined that their ‘special relationship’ should be taken into consideration.

Government spokesman Saad al-Hadithi says Iraqis are hoping that the new orders ‘will not affect the efforts of strengthening and developing the bilateral relations between Iraq and the United States.’

Demonstrators protest muslim ban at Dallas Fort Worth airport

Hundreds gathered at Chicago O’Hare airport Saturday to speak out against Trump’s ban on immigration Saturday

‘Muslims are welcome’: One Chicago protester insisted that all should be able to come to the US regardless of their religion

Hundreds of protesters arrived at Chicago O’Hare airport to protest against Trump’s executive order on Saturday

Protestors rallied at a demonstration against the new ban on immigration issued by Trump at Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts

More than 1,000 people gathered at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to protest Trump’s order that restricts immigration

Al-Hadithi told The Associated Press on Sunday the government hopes the ‘measures will be temporary and for regulatory reasons and not permanent at least for Iraq.’

Iran’s foreign ministry suggested the country would limit issuing visas to American tourists in retaliation for Trump’s suspension of immigration and visas.

The official IRNA news agency carried a statement by the Iranian foreign ministry on Saturday that said Iran will resort to ‘counteraction’ to Trump’s executive order.

‘Iran, to defend the dignity of the great Iranian nation, will implement the principle of reciprocity until the removal of the insulting restriction against Iranian nationals,’ the statement read.

Protesters gathered at the international arrivals area of Dulles International Airport, where 50 people were detained

‘America wants you here!’ Protesters sent a clear message to all visitors arriving at Washington Dulles International Airport

While a protest unfolded at Dulles International airport, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Attorney General Mark Herring have said the state could take legal action against the ban

Demonstrators also gathered in San Francisco International Airport Saturday to protest against the ban on immigration

‘No ban, no wall’: One demonstrator spoke out against two of Trump’s major campaign promises at the San Francisco rally

Kayla Razavi, whose family emigrated from Iran, addressed the crowd during the San Francisco protest Saturday afternoon

Demonstrators hold signs reading ‘Home of the free’ during the rally against the ban on immigration in San Francisco

‘It will apply corresponding legal, consular and political actions.’

The two countries have had no diplomatic relations since 1979 when militants stormed the US embassy.

But the ban has received some support, with the National Border Patrol Council, which represents about 18,000 border patrol staffers, backing Trump’s measures.

Demonstrators rallied at the Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport Saturday afternoon to protest against Trump’s ban

James Badue, who is with the Minnesota NAACP, led other opponents in a chant: ‘No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here,’ as an airport police officer tried to quiet him at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

Travelers arriving to at the international gate of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport were greeted by protesters demonstrating against the executive order signed by President Trump

Family with baby is released after judge blocks immigration ban

Protesters also demonstrated at Dallas Forth Worth Airport Saturday afternoon as the immigration ban created chaos

‘He will not divide us’: One demonstrator made a plea for unity at Dallas Fort Worth Airport while protesting with his brother

One demonstrator at LAX re-purposed Hillary Clinton’s supporters’ motto, this time applying it to the Statue Of Liberty

People held signs with the names of people detained and denied entry at Los Angeles International Airport on Saturday

Homa Homaei, a US Citizen from Iran, is pictured receiving a hug from a lawyer working to help her Iranian family members effected by the travel ban at Los Angeles International Airport

‘We fully support and appreciate President Trump’s swift and decisive action to keep the American people safe and allow law enforcement to do its job,’ the council said in a statement.

‘We applaud the three executive orders he has issued to date, and are confident they will make America safer and more prosperous.

‘Morale amongst our agents and officers has increased exponentially since the signing of the orders.

‘The men and women of ICE and Border Patrol will work tirelessly to keep criminals, terrorists, and public safety threats out of this country, which remains the number one target in the world – and President Trump’s actions now empower us to fulfill this life saving mission, and it will indeed save thousands of lives and billions of dollars.’

Volunteer lawyers are pictured working pro-bono Saturday in New York preparing petitions for detainees at JFK

‘I felt discriminated against’: MP Nadhim Zahawi on being banned

Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who had worked as a interpreter with the U.S. Army in Iraq, was released from detention on Saturday. He was detained after flying into New York on Friday night

Trump signs order to bar some refugees prioritizing Syrian Christians

Emotional: Muslim travelers were nervous as they arrived in JFK today as chaos was apparent over the enforcement of Trump’s immigration executive order

It follows reports that Muslim-majority countries with ties to Trump’s business empire have been excluded from the order